a taller man than my mother

[Akane]

"In terms of height, regardless of gender, I have never seen a taller man than my mother."

I understand that without the opening phrase, it implies "my mother is a man," which is a category error. However, my argument is that by explicitly setting the domain as "height" and "regardless of gender," the word "man" no longer functions as a biological category but as a representative of the "tallest group" on the height scale.

It's similar to saying:"I have never seen a more beautiful flower than my girlfriend."(No one thinks the girlfriend is literally a plant; she is just being compared on the scale of beauty.)

My question is:Does the explicit context "(In terms of height, regardless of gender)" logically allow this comparison to work as a rhetorical device, even if it's unconventional? Or is the "man = male" category constraint so hard-wired in English that no amount of context can override it?

 

[5jj]

"In terms of height, regardless of gender, I have never seen a taller man than my mother."

The sentence is a mess. If you are talking of 'taller', then 'in terms of height' is superfluous. If you are talking of 'a taller man', then 'regardless of gender' is confusing.

"I have never seen a more beautiful flower than my girlfriend."(No one thinks the girlfriend is literally a plant; she is just being compared on the scale of beauty.)

No. The sentence suggests that the speaker thinks of the girl as a flower. This can be avoided by changing the word order: I have never seen a flower more beautiful than my girlfriend

 

[Akane]

The sentence is a mess. If you are talking of 'taller', then 'in terms of height' is superfluous. If you are talking of 'a taller man', then 'regardless of gender' is confusing.

No. The sentence suggests that the speaker thinks of the girl as a flower. This can be avoided by changing the word order: I have never seen a flower more beautiful than my girlfriend

Thank you. In the case of “I have never seen a taller boy than my sister in this school,” this sentence sounds completely natural, and it doesn’t suggest that my sister is a boy. The context makes the comparison clear. Am I understanding this correctly.

 

[5jj]

I doubt if anyone would mistake your meaning but, like your other sentences, it's awkward. It's more natural as I have never seen a boy taller than my sister in this school

 

[Annabel Lee]

I have never seen a flower more beautiful than my girlfriend

This thread calls to my mind the first sentence of a famous poem, called "Trees" (1913), by Joyce Kilmer:

"I think that I shall never see​

A poem lovely as a tree."​

 

[jutfrank]

I understand that without the opening phrase, it implies "my mother is a man," which is a category error.

Right. You can't call your mother a man, since gender categories like this tend to be so rigid. This is what you mean:

I've never seen a man taller than my mother.

This is okay, and it doesn't mean your mum is a man.

However, my argument is that by explicitly setting the domain as "height" and "regardless of gender," the word "man" no longer functions as a biological category but as a representative of the "tallest group" on the height scale.

I see. You would argue that stipulating 'regardless of gender', you will override the semantics we get from the word order.

It's similar to saying:"I have never seen a more beautiful flower than my girlfriend."(No one thinks the girlfriend is literally a plant; she is just being compared on the scale of beauty.)

I think this is wrong. It isn't the same. In this sentence, the meaning is that your girlfrien is a flower, metaphorically speaking. You can't do that with your mother—you can't call her a man, even metaphorically.

My question is:Does the explicit context "(In terms of height, regardless of gender)" logically allow this comparison to work as a rhetorical device, even if it's unconventional?

The question is not really whether it works, the question is: Does it work well enough to get away with it, and to successfully convey the intended message? The short answer to that is no, since you're making a contradiction: the word order says your mum is a man, but I know from my knowledge of the world that mothers are women, and women are not men.

In other words, your addition of the phrase 'regardless of gender' is not enough to override the semantics, and the sentence is a failure by contradiction. A woman cannot be called a man in this way, even figuratively speaking.

Or is the "man = male" category constraint so hard-wired in English that no amount of context can override it?

Well, "no amount of context" is quite absolute, which makes me reluctant to say yes here, but basically yes.

 

[jutfrank]

Thank you. In the case of “I have never seen a taller boy than my sister in this school,” this sentence sounds completely natural

It depends what you mean by 'natural'. I would say that it is natural, in the sense that it uses natural language, but it doesn't make sense so it's no good despite its naturalness.

and it doesn’t suggest that my sister is a boy

Yes, it does.

 

[Rover_KE]

Also asked and answered here.

 

[emsr2d2]

@Akane Please don't post on multiple forums at (almost) the same time. You posted here at 6.33am (UK time) and on WR at 7.41am (UK time). When you posted on WR, you already had one good response here. Post on one forum and wait for a few responses. If, for some reason, you get no responses or you're not satisfied with the responses, try another forum by all means but you must tell the other forum that you've posted elsewhere and explain why you're asking them exactly the same question. It's frustrating for us to spend our free time giving answers only to find the question has already been answered elsewhere.

 

[Annabel Lee]

". . . I have never seen a taller man than my mother."
. . . "I have never seen a more beautiful flower than my girlfriend."

Comparative constructions are often analyzed as containing elided elements. Assuming that than should be parsed as a subordinating conjunction rather than as a preposition here, we get the following:

I have never seen a taller man than my mother [is a tall man].​

I have never seen a more beautiful flower than my girlfriend [is a beautiful flower].​

Similarly, although one could say I have never seen a bigger doughnut than an apple fritter, one could not say I have never seen a bigger doughnut than a cupcake, because a cupcake is not a doughnut, yet the latter sentence entails the absurd idea that a cupcake is a doughnut -- a big one.

 

[5jj]

Similarly, although one could say I have never seen a bigger doughnut than an apple fritter, one could not say I have never seen a bigger doughnut than a cupcake, because a cupcake is not a doughnut, yet the latter sentence entails the absurd idea that a cupcake is a doughnut -- a big one.

I am be being rather dense here, but I don't see how we can say the apple fritter sentence but not the cupcake one

 

[Annabel Lee]

I am be being rather dense here, but I don't see how we can say the apple fritter sentence but not the cupcake one

An apple fritter is a doughnut, but a cupcake is not. Since a doughnut is a completely different type of thing, it does not make any sense whatsoever to speak of a cupcake as if it were a doughnut (of any size). If your hidden objection is that fritters are not doughnuts, either, to my understanding they are; they're what I used to order as a kid on the rare occasions I went to a doughnut shop. I'd prefer not to debate whether apple fritters are doughnuts, though. If that is the objection, I will simply change the example to make the same point. My point in using those two examples was to make things clear and free the discussion from worries about gender.

 

[5jj]

An apple fritter is a doughnut,

Now I understand. To me, apple fritters and doughnuts are different things.